New Energy Vehicles (NEVs) in China

Anlsvrthng said:

Interesting, I tough that this fuel cell hype died decade ago.

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a primary energy source.
And it is one of the most dangerous energy carrier, it explode between 5-95% concentration in air (not burn, explode )

And to make it worst , it is next to impossible to store, in cryogenic form (-253 Celsius !!!! 20 kelvin !!!!! ) it has 71kg/cubic meter density.

If someone making hydrogen then it makes more sense to synthesise petrol with it,using tar/bitumen as feedstock.


And hydrogen source can be high temperature realtor, like molten salt one, with sulfur–iodine cycle.

Click to expand...

Hydrogen as a fuel is about as safe as gasoline for automobiles. See below:





Compared to battery electric vehicles, fuel cell electric vehicles offer the same driving distance, refueling time, and cold weather performance as vehicles with gasoline internal combustion engines. Hydrogen is the most abundant element, and is a by-product of oil refinery and ammonia production. It can also be produced by electrolysis, using solar power, power grid, or nuclear power. It's as important as battery, if not more important, for new energy vehicles.

supercat said:

Hydrogen as a fuel is about as safe as gasoline for automobiles. See below:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Compared to battery electric vehicles, fuel cell electric vehicles offer the same driving distance, refueling time, and cold weather performance as vehicles with gasoline internal combustion engines. Hydrogen is the most abundant element, and is a by-product of oil refinery and ammonia production. It can also be produced by electrolysis, using solar power, power grid, or nuclear power. It's as important as battery, if not more important, for new energy vehicles.

Click to expand...

In Fukushima the hydrogen destroyed the reactor buildings.

If molten iron touch water then the explosion is due to the hydrogen as well.

To call the hydrogen as byproduct of oil refinery and ammonia production is like to call the corn as byproduct of a pig farm.

The oil refinery produce same hydrogen during reforming, but it needs way more to remove the sulphur and to close the hydrogen chains.

And for NH3 making the hydrogen is the basic feedstock : ) , without that it not possible to make from the air N2 ammonia.

Producing hydrogen using electrolysis is like taking pants off to fart (a Chinese saying). Why not just transmit the electricity directly into the car batteries?

21st century is full of hypes. Let's just not make hydrogen car another hype. Yes, fuel-cell is advantageous than battery in that it is better in cold climate, it also takes less time in re-fueling than battery car in re-charging. But remember, that is only for now before battery tech advanced to the point that greatly diminish the advantage.

However, hydrogen fuel-cell has the inherited draw-back that can NEVER be overcome, it is less energy efficient, it is NOT abundant. Not abundant because it does not exist in natural form, producing it from electrolysis from water waste energy, therefor less efficient (a lot less than 100% electricity can be converted to energy stored in Hydrogen), producing it from natural gas or crude oil as a by product produce the same pollutant as producing gasoline defeating the "cleanness" idea.

Hydrogen industry certainly has its right place in clean energy, but it is not "万金油" (Chinese saying of magical medicine). The hype of Hydrogen industry is partially driven by desire of attracting investment and getting government subsides. If there is a hype of battery powered EV (or any EV), hydrogen fuel-cell proposers are just doing the same.

Anlsvrthng said:

In Fukushima the hydrogen destroyed the reactor buildings.

If molten iron touch water then the explosion is due to the hydrogen as well.

To call the hydrogen as byproduct of oil refinery and ammonia production is like to call the corn as byproduct of a pig farm.

The oil refinery produce same hydrogen during reforming, but it needs way more to remove the sulphur and to close the hydrogen chains.

And for NH3 making the hydrogen is the basic feedstock : ) , without that it not possible to make from the air N2 ammonia.

Click to expand...

Fukushima is an exceedingly rare nuclear freak accident that is not really relevant to the routine daily operations of fuel cell EVs. In fact, hydrogen can be quite safe even in very confined space if you know what you are doing, as demonstrated by the fuel cell AIP onboard of type 212 submarines.

The by-product of pig farm is fertilizer, not corn. But I agree that oil refinery and ammonia production are not the main methods for hydrogen production.

vincent said:

Producing hydrogen using electrolysis is like taking pants off to fart (a Chinese saying). Why not just transmit the electricity directly into the car batteries?

Click to expand...

Electrolysis may well be worth the trouble if you realize the limitations of battery in range, recharging time, and cold weather performance, as well as the environmental cost associated with battery production and disposal/recycling.

taxiya said:

...

However, hydrogen fuel-cell has the inherited draw-back that can NEVER be overcome, it is less energy efficient, it is NOT abundant. Not abundant because it does not exist in natural form, producing it from electrolysis from water waste energy, therefor less efficient (a lot less than 100% electricity can be converted to energy stored in Hydrogen), producing it from natural gas or crude oil as a by product produce the same pollutant as producing gasoline defeating the "cleanness" idea.
...

Click to expand...

There is no inherent draw-back for hydrogen energy that cannot be overcome. On the contrary, the problems of hydrogen storage and distribution have almost all been solved already. The major problem currently is that there are not enough hydrogen refueling stations. Electrolysis using electricity from nuclear power plant will be a rather clean production method. The end product of using the hydrogen energy - water, will be recycled close to 100%, if not 100%. Finally, neither battery power nor hydrogen power is hype. Some casual googling will provide you with enormous information, including many private and public research projects, on these topics.

supercat said:

Electrolysis may well be worth the trouble if you realize the limitations of battery in range, recharging time, and cold weather performance, as well as the environmental cost associated with battery production and disposal/recycling.

Click to expand...

Fuel cells have their own shortcomings, and there are significant problems with producing, transporting, and storing hydrogen. If you want to go the fuel cell route it makes much more sense to go with a methane or methanol/ethanol fuel cell.

supercat said:

There is no inherent draw-back for hydrogen energy that cannot be overcome.

Click to expand...

There's a very significant one: hydrogen doesn't occur in an economically exploitable form. There are no hydrogen deposits you can drill out and transport. Hydrogen has to be produced and it will always make more sense to use whatever you're producing it from (methane gas or electricity) to directly power a vehicle.

I know very little about fuel cells tech. One thing i do know is Toyota had spent billions on fuel cell tech and it still can’t make it commercially viable

ZeEa5KPul said:

Fuel cells have their own shortcomings, and there are significant problems with producing, transporting, and storing hydrogen. If you want to go the fuel cell route it makes much more sense to go with a methane or methanol/ethanol fuel cell.
...

Click to expand...

The problem with methanol and ethanol fuel cells is that their end products contain both water and carbon dioxide. CO2 is the air pollutant that causes global warming that we want to reduce at all costs. Another problem is the low efficiency of platinum catalyst when it's used in methanol and ethanol fuel cells, especially in ethanol fuel cells.

supercat said:

CO2 is the air pollutant that causes global warming that we want to reduce at all costs.

Click to expand...

It's net increase of CO2 that's the problem. If the alcohol is produced from biomass then the net CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn't increase.

supercat said:

Another problem is the low efficiency of platinum catalyst when it's used in methanol and ethanol fuel cells, especially in ethanol fuel cells.

Click to expand...

There's going to have to be a lot of difficult chemistry problems solved to make them viable, but they are far more attractive propositions than hydrogen. For one, we already have a vast infrastructure in place for transporting liquid fuels; we have nothing like that for hydrogen. We can't use the natural gas infrastructure since the hydrogen would leak and embrittle the pipes. And being liquids, they're far more energy dense than hydrogen.

Basically, the Chinese government strategy looks to me as follows:

90% Electric Vehicles: Short-distances where the vehicles have time to recharge (eg. within cities)
10% Hydrogen Vehicles: Long-distances where vehicles don't have time to recharge (eg. trucks, buses)

Most trips are short distances, but even 10% for long-distance trucks and buses is a huge and untapped global market